Search results

A recently passed law to abolish Tennessee’s judicial discipline commission and replace it with a new ethics body, and to reform the way that judges are held accountable, has taken effect.

The law creates a new Board of Judicial Conduct, replacing the Court of the Judiciary. The plan also seeks to increase legislative oversight of the judicial branch.

“The new law aims to provide transparency and fairness to both complainants and judges,” said state Sen. Mike Faulk, a Republican, according to a Chattanoogan article. “It also gives the Board a mechanism to use the new Rules of Judicial Conduct, which are nationally recognized as a model for other states, adopted by the Tennessee Supreme Court.”

Compromise legislation to abolish Tennessee’s judicial discipline commission and replace it with a new ethics body, and to reform the way judges are held accountable, won legislative approval and was headed to the governor for his signature.

The plan seeks to increase legislative oversight of the judicial branch. Although it follows years of sometimes heated argument, according to a Knoxville News Sentinel article, the compromise that eventually was struck drew widespread support. It passed the state House on a vote of 88-5 this week.

Gavel Grab reported earlier on Tea Party conservatives’ push for Tennessee legislators to take control over naming members of the discipline commission, now called the Court of the Judiciary. The compromise version did not incorporate that idea. It makes these changes: Read more

A compromise plan to reform the way judges are held accountable in Tennessee won unanimous, 30-0 approval in the state Senate.

The compromise plan would replace the Court of the Judiciary, as the state’s judicial discipline commission is known, with a “judicial board of conduct.” The legislation seeks to increase legislative oversight of the judicial branch, according to a (Nashville) Tennesseean article. Tennessee’s judges had a voice in shaping the compromise.

Tennessee’s House has not yet voted on companion legislation. You can learn about other facets of the legislation, and its background, from Gavel Grab.

A compromise plan to reform the way judges are held accountable in Tennessee has won approval in both the state House Judiciary Committee and the state Senate Judicial Committee.

The legislation would replace the Court of the Judiciary, as the state’s judicial discipline commission is known, with a “judicial board of conduct,” according to a (Nashville) Tennessean article. You can learn about other facets of the legislation, and its background, from Gavel Grab.

Republican Sen. Mike Faulk said that despite its compromise nature, the bill would represent an improvement. “It solves a lot of problems,” he said.“The ends of justice are served.”

Many state judges support the bill, said Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Jeff Bivins.

Tea party conservatives have pushed for Tennessee legislators to grab control over naming members of a judicial discipline commission, and legislators now are weighing two rival bills, one sponsored by a top critic of the panel and the other supported by judges.

The commission is called the Court of the Judiciary. It currently has 16 members, 10 of whom are judges — and most of the judges are Democrats, appointed by the state Supreme Court. The legislature is controlled by Republicans.

“The appearance of judges appointing judges to hear complaints on judges doesn’t give them much credibility,” said Senate Judiciary Chairwoman Mae Beavers, a Republican; her bill would get rid of the existing board and start over by cutting it to 12 members, including four sitting judges and one retiree. All members would be named by speakers of the House or Senate.

A reform bill pushed by judges would eliminate the Court of the Judiciary and set up in its place a “Board of Judicial Conduct,” still with 10 of its 16 members who are judges. The board would have a lower standard for conducting a full investigation; board members, not staff, would have responsibility for discarding complaints; and the board would issue public reports quarterly, according to a Tennessee Report article.

“Certainly there have been issues, and I think we’re trying to address those issues,” said Criminal Appeals Judge Jeff Bivins. “We have some new membership. I think some of us are looking harder at cases and taking a little tougher line.”

“That is crossing the line on separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches,” Ramsey said. “Because we make the law and they interpret the law. If you don’t like what they’re coming down with, then you do everything you can to change the court.”

Democratic Sen. Roy Herron, a lawyer, raised the specter of a threat to fair and impartial courts.

“Democracy is threatened by those who would take away the independence of the judiciary,” he said. “We ought to look very carefully before the politicians begin to take away the independence of the judiciary in Tennessee.”

In Tennessee’s Republican-controlled legislature, Beavers’ proposal was one of several measures proposed that would affect the courts. Another would revise the procedures for disciplining judges (see Gavel Grab), and a third would move gradually toward a constitutional amendment to settle legal questions about the way appeals judges are chosen (see Gavel Grab) through merit selection. Read more

Some Tennessee legislators have warned they will take matters into their own hands if the state’s judicial discipline commission isn’t revamped.

“Judges, you better get your house in order because we’re going to do it for you if you can’t,” Republican Rep. Tony Shipley warned at a legislative hearing Tuesday, after hearing disgruntled litigants air their complaints, according to a Tennesseean article.

Gavel Grab has reported on Tea Party conservatives’ push for Tennessee legislators to take control over naming members of the discipline commission, called the Court of the Judiciary. At this week’s hearing, Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Jeff Bivins said Tennessee judges are willing to lower the standard for when a full investigation may be launched into a complaint against a judge.

The presiding judge for the Court of the Judiciary, Chris Craft, said most complaints lodged against judges are frivolous, beyond the authority of the commission or deal with legal decisions that should be taken up in appeals courts. “What we don’t do, is we don’t sweep things under the rug,” he said.

Tennessee’s legislature is eyeing a major debate next year over possibly scrapping the state’s merit selection system for picking judges (see Gavel Grab). At this week’s hearing, a legislative panel did not make a recommendation on retaining the state’s Judicial Nominating Commission or its Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, which are set to expire.

At a statewide gathering, Tennessee judges made news on two fronts. The chief justice presented a proposed new ethics code, including more robust rules governing when judges must step aside from hearing a case. And trial judges voted to retain a lobbyist for help on a hot issue in the legislature.

Meeting at the Tennessee Judicial Conference, judges heard about a new Code of Judicial Conduct proposed by the Tennessee Bar Association, according to a (Nashville) Tennesseean article. One rule would require a judge to step down from a case if he got campaign support from parties to a case, or from attorneys, rising to a level that would lead a reasonable person to question the judge’s impartiality.

The proposed Code also requires judges to issue a written decision on recusal requests that includes their reasoning for stepping aside or deciding to preside over the case. It further provides a process for review of denied recusal requests at the trial court and appellate levels.

Tennessee legislators, in addition to considering a revamp of the state’s judicial discipline commission, may look at setting tougher rules governing when judges accused of a conflict of interest must step aside from hearing a case.

Gavel Grab has reported on Tea Party conservatives’ push for Tennessee legislators to take control over naming members of the discipline commission, called the Court of the Judiciary. Also under discussion, a Knoxville News Sentinel article said, are stricter recusal rules imposed by the legislature and repealing a law that permits reprimands of judges to be kept secret. Judges say the latter proposal would make bad policy.

Judicial recusal rules currently are set by the state Supreme Court. For the legislature to change them could violate the Tennessee constitution, said Chris Craft, presiding judge of the Court of the Judiciary.

According to the article, the Tennessee Bar Association has proposed a revision of current rules that calls for an immediate, expedited appeal of a judge’s refusal to recuse himself or herself. These appeals now can take months.

To learn about the need for robust recusal rules when campaign contributors appear before a judge, check out the JAS issues page on the topic or read a recent Chicago Tribune op-ed by JAS Executive Director Bert Brandenburg.

A flurry of news media commentary suggests ways to preserve the valuable work of Tennessee’s judicial discipline commission, while possibly adopting reforms far short of a political takeover by the legislative branch.

Tea Party conservatives are pushing for Tennessee legislators to grab control over naming members of the Court of the Judiciary, and the 16-member commission drew fire during two hearings by an ad hoc legislative committee last week (see Gavel Grab).

In The Tennesseean, columnist Gail Kerr wrote that “The Republican-dominated General Assembly is loaded for bear,” and most of the commission’s 10 members who are judges are Democrats. The judges are appointed by the state Supreme Court. “Unfortunately, the legislature is maneuvering a takeover of the judicial branch for purely political reasons,” she remarked.

Kerr called for broadening the selection of members of the panel, while averting politics in their selection, and also for a healthy dose of transparency, with a public announcement of all judges who are disciplined. Her column was headlined, “Judicial board needs transparency, not a takeover.”

“Judicial ethics board may get a makeover/Review should not stray into separation of powers,” declared the headline for a Tennesseean column by Paul Summers, a former state attorney general and former appellate judge. Read more

Search this site

About the Justice at Stake Campaign

The Justice at Stake Campaign supports fair and impartial courts by educating the public about the importance of and growing threat to fair courts, as well as educating and organizing allies and grassroots supporters to support reforms in the selection of judges, safeguard courts from political attacks and promote diversity on the bench.

The Campaign's affiliate organization, Justice at Stake, is a nonpartisan organization working to keep our courts fair and impartial. Justice at Stake and its partners educate the public and work for reforms to keep politics and special interests out of the courtroom so judges can do their job protecting our Constitution, our rights and the rule of law.